16
LANGUAGE LEARNING
Alberth
(alberth@programmer.net / alberth@curtin.edu.au)
Curtin University of Technology, Haluoleo University
Abstract: With the proliferation of online courses nowadays, it is neces-sary to ask what defines the success of teaching and learning in these new learning environments exactly. This paper identifies and critically discusses a number of factors for successful implementation of online delivery, particularly as far as online language learning is concerned. These include student and teacher characteristics, instructional design, provision of support to instructors and students, technology, and lan-guage skills characteristics. I argue that these factors need to be care-fully considered when designing online language learning simply be-cause they could potentially impinge on students’ learning and learning experience in these new learning environments.
Key words: critical success factors, online language learning
The past decade has seen a proliferation of online course offerings (Rovai, Wighting, & Lucking, 2004), either as a primary mode of delivery or as a complement to conventional classroom instruction (Olson & Wisher, 2002). In the context of language teaching and learning, the new technology has also gained immense popularity. For example, the Internet has been used for teaching English for Specific Purposes (Nesi, 1998), Translation (Connel, 1999), Vocabulary (Fitze, 2006), and Writing (Mehlenbacher, Miller, Cov-ington, & Larsen, 2000). Although use of this technology in language class-rooms can be traced as far back as two decades ago, it has only been during
1
the past ten years or so that online language learning programs have started to increase dramatically (Fukushima, 2006).
As the number of online course offerings continues to mount, so too do research studies examining their effectiveness. However, the results of these studies have not always been consistent, in that some studies have attested to the effectiveness of an online strategy, while others have re-ported quite the opposite (Jones & Chen, 2008). These conflicting findings have raised critical questions about what exactly dictates the success of an online mode of delivery. What are the critical success factors in online learning, then? The term “critical success factor” has been used to refer to issues or factors that must be addressed, considered, or taken into account to ensure successful implementation of online learning. One reason for identifying these factors is that, with the advent of sophisticated technology to deliver course materials, it is always tempting to attribute the success or failure of an online learning program to technology alone. In this respect, Fischer and Scharff (1998: 5) cogently argue that “one of the major misun-derstandings in our current debate about enhancing learning with new me-dia is the assumption that technological advances will, by virtue of their very existence, improve the quality of learning”. Unfortunately, such a mis-conception is not uncommon among educators across the globe.
Selim (2007) noted that, while there is plethora of research articles comparing the effectiveness of online learning relative to conventional face-to-face classroom instruction, very few articles have addressed the critical factors that impinge upon the success of online learning. This is particularly true for online language learning, as relatively little research has been conducted in this particular context (Olson & Wisher, 2002). The CSFs proposed in this paper are concerned with online language learning, they may well be applicable to other fields. Identifying these critical suc-cess factors is crucial, since it has both theoretical and practical implica-tions. At a theoretical level, identifying online learning’s critical success factors may contribute to further development and refinement of current online learning theories. At a very practical level, it may serve as a practical guideline for online instructors seeking to integrate technology into the cur-riculum. Put simply, examining critical success factors in online learning is crucial if we are to make the most of online learning (Volery & Lord, 2000).
recognized three factors: technology, instructor characteristics, and student characteristics. However, a number of other critical factors such as instruc-tional design (pedagogy), unit characteristics, and provision of support for both instructors and students have not been considered, despite the fact that these factors may actually play an equally, if not more important, role in the success of an online learning program. Therefore, I herewith propose six critical success factors impinging on the effectiveness of online learning in general, and online language learning in particular. These critical factors include: (a) student characteristics (b) instructional design (pedagogy) (c) provision of support for both instructors and students (d) teacher character-istics (e) technology and (f) language skills charactercharacter-istics. Arguments psented in this paper are drawn from two sources: (1) a current literature re-view on online learning, and (2) empirical data from the author’s own study2 comparing the effectiveness of the three different modes of instruc-tion: face-to-face, online, and hybrid instruction.
STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS
A study conducted by the author suggests that some students perceive the teacher’s physical absence in an online environment to be detrimental to their motivation to participate in online discussion and sharing of ideas with others. Others reported that they just could not put up with being exposed to a computer screen and would prefer to read course materials from course books accordingly. Interestingly, there are also students who testified that, although they did enjoy the dynamic interaction afforded by the Web, they still believe that they would learn more effectively in a conventional class-room. In other words, for all these students, technology cannot replace face-to-face communication with the teacher in a face-to-face classroom.
By contrast, some students reported that they not only enjoyed work-ing with computers and interacted with one another uswork-ing both synchronous and asynchronous communication, but also expressed their strong interest in future online learning programs. These students expressed their apprecia-tion of the flexibility of online learning in terms of ‘time’ and ‘space’, which enabled them to learn at their own pace. Furthermore, they also re-ported that online learning is both interesting and convenient – they could find help from a diverse array of sources: the teacher, classmates, online communities, and search engines. Some students described how they
joyed social interaction with English speaking people using synchronous communication made available by social network providers. Whilst social interaction with native speakers was at these students’ own initiative and was not part of the learning activities, this experience proves to be a par-ticularly interesting one.
Finally, the majority of students who reported that they enjoyed their online experience also testified that their self-confidence in using English to communicate with native speakers increased immensely as a result of their online experience over the course of the semester.
The above cases suggest that although identical learning environments are provided and the same teacher teaches the class, students may well react quite differently to such a delivery mode. I would argue, following previous authors, those differences in students’ perceptions of online learning may partially be attributed to students’ individual characteristics. In particular, students have different learning styles (Diaz & Cartnal, 1999) and learning preferences (Wallace, 1996). The former refers to how individuals process information in a certain learning environment, whereas the latter concerns primarily the learning methods that work best for each student. As far as online delivery mode is concerned, there is evidence that suggests that stu-dents’ perception of its effectiveness is influenced by their learning styles (Sauers & Walker, 2004). Because students have different learning styles and learning preferences, online learning may suit certain learning styles better than others (Terrell, 2002). This difference in students’ learning styles will, in turn, affect their perception of the merit of online delivery. In the context of language learning, it has been reported that students “whose major learning style preference was auditory considered Web-based learn-ing more useful for learnlearn-ing vocabulary than did those with this style as a minor or negligible preference” (Felix, 2004: 245). Thus, examining the relationship between learning styles and students’ perception of learning a language or a particular language skill online is crucial to ensure successful implementation of online language learning.
may have sound computer literacy, others may be struggling with moving the mouse. In the end, these differences can impinge on their attitudes to technology-enhanced learning (Holscherl & Strubel, 2000). Since students have different levels of computer literacy, technology-enhanced learning may not work for every student3 (Rovai, 2004).
Finally, online delivery requires that students take more responsibility of their own learning more than that expected in a face-to-face classroom. The problem, however, is that while some students are less dependent, oth-ers rely heavily on their teacher for their learning. Students who are less dependent on their teacher normally set their own goals and develop strate-gies to achieve these goals without expecting their teacher to tell them what to do. These students are normally referred to as self-regulated learners. By contrast, students who are not self-regulated in their learning rely heavily on their teacher and the absence of the teacher can be detrimental to their learning and learning experience. Typically, these students would require ongoing guidance from the teacher. Because online delivery requires that students be independent and is more challenging than conventional class-room, it is naturally more appropriate for self-regulated learners. Indeed, previous studies suggest that only those who employ self-regulation in their learning would most benefit from the online delivery mode (O'Hanlon, 2001). Thus, students’ self-regulation should be taken into account when introducing an online mode of delivery. Being able to identify which stu-dents may thrive in an online environment and which ones flourish in a conventional classroom is critical for the success of an online mode of in-struction. Of course, there are still other individual characteristics that may also come into play, but providing an exhaustive list of these characteristics is beyond the scope of this current paper.
To sum up the discussion thus far, previous studies point to the fact that differences in individual characteristics play a critical role in shaping learners’ perceptions of, and attitude to, online delivery, which may, in turn, impinge on successful implementation of online delivery. Therefore, the challenge for future research is to comprehensively scrutinise learners’ characteristics and decide which particular characteristics are more likely to thrive in an online mode of delivery and which are more likely to flourish in a conventional face-to-face classroom. Only then can we take an utmost
3
benefit of the technology in enhancing learning and avoid unnecessary has-sle from both the teacher and the students.
TECHNOLOGY
An interesting argument in the debate over the effectiveness of an online mode of instruction concerns the role of technology. Clark (1983: 445) contends that “media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition”. Arguing in a similar vein, Blake, Wilson, Cetto, and Pardo-Ballester (2008: 124) write “the EFL teacher, not the medium, will ultimately determine whether or not any given instantia-tion of a DL [Distance Learning] language course makes a positive contri-bution to the L2 student’s long march to advanced proficiency”. In other words, these researchers suggest that technology only plays an insignificant role in students’ learning and learning experience. I would, however, sug-gest, following some of the previous researchers, that successful implemen-tation of online learning depends crucially on the technology factor and its role cannot, therefore, be underestimated.
To begin with, in the absence of face-to-face contact between the teacher and the students and among the students themselves, communica-tion in an online environment relies heavily on technology. In this case, reliable technology plays a critical role. A study conducted by the author reveals that one of the frequently reported disadvantage of online delivery concerns technical problems faced by students while trying to access the Web. These problems include frequent disruption to the internet connec-tion, slow loading, compatibility of hardware and software, just to name a few, all of which contribute to students’ dissatisfaction. Indeed, plethora of research suggests that, as far as online delivery is concerned, technical problems are amongst the most frequently identified (Ku & Lohr, 2003). Therefore, reliable technology is a pre-requisite for successful implementa-tion of online delivery.
contrast, unnecessarily intricate designs may be intimidating, even for those who have previous experience with computers. Additionally, when devel-oping more than one online course, it is important to develop consistent designs to enable users to efficiently navigate across different courses, for inconsistent designs could be perplexing for some students when trying to access learning materials or using online communication tools. Thus, inter-face designs should also be taken into account when developing online courses.
Furthermore, online learning tools should be capable of providing stu-dents with a diverse array of communication channels. Put differently, they should enable the students to communicate both synchronously and asyn-chronously. This is particularly important since empirical evidence suggests that the provision of multi-communication channels in an online environ-ment correlates positively with student satisfaction with online delivery (Williams, Nicholas, & Gunter, 2005). Obviously, just like face-to-face instruction, online tuition requires students to perform different learning tasks such as small group discussion, class discussion, presentation, brain-storming, working in pairs, and so forth. In this case, a certain communica-tion channel may be more preferable than others to perform a given task. Media Richness theory postulates that the effectiveness of the media de-pends crucially on the appropriate match between characteristics of the tasks or information to be communicated and media richness (Daft, Lengel, & Trevino, 1987). Therefore, both synchronous and asynchronous commu-nication tools should be made available simply because each communica-tion medium has its own strengths and weaknesses relative to task charac-teristics. Most importantly, these tools should be accessible all the time.
be-cause these communication tools enable language learners to have access to native speakers.
Clearly then, while it is true that technology is not the only factor that may impinge on successful implementation of an online delivery, it is evi-dent that its role cannot be underestimated. Regardless of instructional de-sign, unit objectives may be difficult, if not impossible, to attain with unre-liable technology or inappropriate choice of technology relative to learning tasks, made worse by non-user friendly interface designs. It is for this rea-son that, unlike some of the previous researchers who have underestimated the role of technology, I suggest that technology should be seriously taken into account when designing online delivery. The choice of which technol-ogy to opt for to support certain learning tasks is critical, for its effective-ness may vary, depending on the nature of the tasks at hand.
TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS
In conventional face-to-face classrooms, each teacher has different characteristics (some are more friendly, more humorous than others; some have better teaching styles and facilitating skills than others, etc.) and these differences in teacher characteristics may impact on students’ perceptions about the class they attended. This is also true for teaching in an online en-vironment. Webster and Hackley (1997) identified three characteristics of a teacher that may influence students’ perception of the effectiveness of online learning. These include: (a) attitude towards technology (b) teaching style, and (c) control of the technology.
Furthermore, a teacher’s teaching styles also plays a crucial role in an online environment. In particular, teaching styles that promote social inter-action among the students and between the students and the teacher are strongly recommended. Simply providing technology alone does not neces-sarily result in students’ engagement. Social interaction is critical not only because it can reduce a sense of alienation and isolation due to the absence of face-to-face communication among the classroom community members, but also because, as far as modern learning theories are concerned, students would learn best if they interact with one another. A particularly important aspect in this regard is teachers’ facilitating skills, as these have a signifi-cant impact on students’ motivation, participation, and engagement in online activities. Needles to say, dynamic interactions among online stu-dents require good facilitating skills on the part of the teacher. In the ab-sence of face-to-face contact with the teacher, students’ attention can easily be distracted. Also, at times, students are reluctant to participate and, in this case, teachers’ sound facilitating skills can make a real difference. Unfortu-nately, just like teachers in a conventional classroom, online teachers have different facilitating skills; some teachers are better facilitators than others.
Finally, teachers’ survival IT knowledge is also important in engender-ing students’ positive online experience. Very often, as mentioned previ-ously, students are faced with technical problems when accessing the Web and these require immediate response from the teacher. In this case, a de-layed response could be detrimental to their motivation. To be able to pro-vide an immediate response, however, the teachers themselves need to have some basic survival IT knowledge, at least at a very practical level. Teach-ers should also be prepared to do some simple troubleshooting or make some modifications to course content or quizzes when necessary, and this requires a basic understanding of both hardware and software.
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN (PEDAGOGY)
It is a fallacy to assume that, just because a course is run face-to-face it would automatically be a success. This is simply because a number of fac-tors come into play and one of these is instructional design. In a face-to-face classroom, instructional design will help students learn if they attract students’ attention, underscore the relevance of course materials to be learned, engender self-confidence in the learners, and result in learners’ satisfaction with their performance in the course, as well as developing a positive learning experience (Keller, 1983). Thus, instructional design could impact on students’ learning and the learning experience in a conven-tional classroom. This is also the case with online delivery. Roach and Le-masters (2006) reported that course structure and instructional design af-fects students’ satisfaction levels with online learning.
However, while the role of instructional design in online learning has been identified in the literature, much of the discussion centres on the issue of whether it is technology or instructional design that matters most and, in most cases, is not framed within the context of the identification of critical success factors in online learning. For example, it has been suggested that pedagogy plays a more important role than technology (Clark, 1983). Ali and Elfessi (2004: 2) concur with this view and argue that “one common mistake made in the use of the Web is the focus on technology at the ex-pense of pedagogy”. In other words, these researchers all suggest that in-structional design should be prioritised over technology. As I discussed previously, however, both should be taken into account, for each of them could impact on students’ learning and the learning experience in this new learning environment.
Instructional design, which serves as the blueprint of learning activi-ties in a classroom, is grounded on a particular learning theory. Due to its importance, Salaberry (1996: 7) suggests that “it is not the medium itself that determines the pedagogical outcome, but the specific focus of the theo-retical approach on the language learning phenomena”. Put differently, it is the theoretical underpinnings upon which the instructional design and the successive learning activities are based that dictate the outcomes of online delivery. Different theoretical approaches should, therefore, translate into different learning activities, thus potentially different learning outcomes.
work within their zone of proximal development. By comparison, although cognitive constructivism does not regard social interaction as compulsory, it posits that social interaction can potentially promote ‘disequilibrium’, thus forcing the learners to modify their current cognitive structures in light of new information encountered during social interaction with others. By the same token, second language acquisition theory considers social inter-action crucial as it can promote ‘negative evidence’, ‘comprehensible in-put’, and ‘comprehensible output’. In other words, learning activities that encourage social interaction and exchanges of ideas among the learners can be derived from sociocultural constructivism, cognitive constructivism, or second language acquisition theory.
One important consideration when designing learning activities is stu-dent characteristics. For example, while some stustu-dents prefer to work on their own, others may prefer to work in group. Therefore, learning activities should involve both group work and individual learning activities. By de-signing activities that could benefit a diverse array of student characteris-tics, there is a real chance that online delivery will become a success. On the other hand, failing to take student characteristics into account may re-sult in meagre learning or, even worse, the failure of such endeavours. The lack of success of online learning programs in the past may partially be at-tributed to the fact that they did not sufficiently address differences in stu-dent characteristics when designing online learning activities.
cur-rent learning theories, such as sociocultural constructivism, will be in vain if technology does not enable a dynamic interaction among the students, and between the students and the teacher. In this case, Leidner and Jarven-paa (1995: 18) cogently argue that “the effectiveness of information nology in contributing to learning will be a function of how well the tech-nology supports a particular model of learning and the appropriateness of the model to a particular learning situation”.
In short, instructional design plays a major role in conventional face-to-face classroom environments; it is even more important in online learn-ing environments where communication and interaction among members of the classroom community are mediated by technology. Good instructional design is informed by sound learning theories and translated into unambi-guous and well-structured learning activities, and considers the different characteristics of the learners. Success of online delivery depends crucially on how well the learning activities are designed and also how well technol-ogy supports the implementation of such activities. Matching technoltechnol-ogy capabilities and sound instructional design is one of the keys to successful implementation of online learning.
PROVISION OF SUPPORT
In a conventional face-to-face classroom, provision of support to both students and the teacher has long been regarded as an important factor in the success of teaching and learning in this classroom. In an online envi-ronment, the need for this support may even be more imperative. In the ab-sence of face-to-face contact between the teacher and the students and among the students themselves, communication relies heavily on technol-ogy. However, at times, technical problems do occur and, unless dealt with immediately, this could potentially lead to chaos. Whereas some of these problems may be resolved by the teacher, others may require special tech-nical expertise. Thus, it is crucial that both the teacher and students be pro-vided with continuing technical support (Owston, 1997).
and how to provide scaffolding online is also vital. These training programs are essential because they provide teachers with skills critical to effectively and efficiently teach online and, most importantly, because they have the capacity to increase teachers’ self-confidence.
In addition to technical support, professional incentives and rewards should also be provided to teachers who have successfully taught online units. These incentives can be provided in the form of promotional activi-ties or the like, which are outlined and defined clearly in the university’s policy and should be well understood by staff. Rewarding online teachers who receive high ratings from the students is important as a way of show-ing appreciation of all the hard work they have done in the past and, at the same time, as an instrument to motivate them to continue to do so in the future. As for those teachers who receive lower ratings, it is necessary that the institution always ensures the availability of necessary training pro-grams in areas in need of further improvement.
Apart from the teacher, online students also require ongoing technical support. In a study conducted by the author, as mentioned earlier, some students reported that they could not log on to the chat room due to soft-ware issues, and it took some time before this issue was resolved. While some students were willing to wait a bit longer until the problem was fixed, others were frustrated by this problem. Thus, providing prompt and reliable technical support constitutes one of the most important ingredients of suc-cessful online delivery. In fact, a previous study suggests that when techni-cal support is provided, students tend to perceive the use of online tools to be relatively easy (Lee, 2006). Obviously, knowing that technical assis-tance is readily available anytime when needed can be reassuring. Perhaps the most distressing experience, as far as online students are concerned, is having a technical problem and not knowing whom to turn to for help, or knowing that the teacher himself cannot be of much help.
All in all, providing various types of support to both online teachers and students is vital to the success of online delivery. It is very difficult to imagine how online delivery could ever be successful without the strong and continuing support and commitment from the institution. Providing technology alone is not sufficient; on the contrary, the introduction of new technology in the classroom may potentially result in chaos without the necessary support from the institution.
LANGUAGE SKILLS CHARACTERISTICS
Previous studies examining the effectiveness of online learning across different subjects and content areas have yielded conflicting findings. These inconsistent results may simply be attributed to the different charac-teristics of the subjects under investigation. In other words, while new technologies may be appropriate for teaching certain subjects, such as maths and statistics, they may not necessarily be suitable for teaching oth-ers (Banas & Emory, 1998).
In the context of language teaching and learning, a similar argument applies. For example, while online delivery may be appropriate for teaching Writing and Grammar as a unit, it may not be automatically suitable for teaching Speaking. The challenge for teachers and researchers in the field is, therefore, to comprehensively scrutinise which language skills are better taught face-to-face; which are appropriate for online; and which can be taught using a hybrid mode, that is, a mixture of face-to-face and online. Needless to say, this will require extensive research before a solid conclu-sion regarding this issue can be confidently made.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
research study by the author, resulting in the identification of six critical success factors of online learning. Although not exhaustive, these factors include student characteristics, instructional design, provision of support to both instructors and students, teacher characteristics, technology, and lan-guage skills characteristics. Throughout this paper, I have argued that these factors should be seriously taken into account when considering opting for online delivery.
REFERENCES
Ali, A. & Elfessi, A. 2004. Examining Students Performance and Attitudes Towards the Use of Information Technology in a Virtual and Conven-tional Setting. The Journal of Interactive Online Learning, (Online),2 (3) (www.ncolr.org/jiol/rss/showarticle.cfm?ArticleID=35), Accessed at 22 August 2010.
Banas, E. J. & Emory, W. 1998. History and Issues of Distance Learning. Public Administration Quarterly, 22 (3): 365-383.
Blake, R., Wilson, N. L., Cetto, M., & Pardo-Ballester, C. 2008. Measur-ing Oral Proficiency in Distance, face-to-face, and Blended Class-rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 12(3): 114-127.
Clark, R. E. 1983. Reconsidering Research on Learning from Media. Re-view of Educational Research, 53 (4): 445-459.
Connel, T. 1999. Web Support for Distance Learning in the Field of Trans-lation. ReCALL, 11 (2): 31-37.
Daft, R. L., Lengel, R. H., & Trevino, L. K. 1987. Message Equivocality, Media Selection and Manager Performance: Implications for Informa-tion Support Systems. MIS Quarterly, 11: 355-366.
Diaz, D. P., & Cartnal, R. B. 1999. Students' Learning Styles in Two Classes. College Teaching, 47 (4): 130-135.
Dillon, C. L. & Gunawardena, C. N. 1995. A Framework for the Evaluation of Telecommunications-based Distance Education. Paper presented at the Selected Papers from the 17th Congress of the International Coun-cil for Distance Education, Birmingham, June.
Fischer, G. & Scharff, E. 1998. Learning Technologies in Support of Self-Directed Learning. (Online), (http://jime.open.ac.uk/1998/4), Accessed on 22 August 2010.
Fitze, M. 2006. Discourse and Participation in ESL Face-to-face and Writ-ten Electronic Conferences. (Online), (www. llt.msu.edu/ vol10num1 /pdf/fitze.pdf), Accessed on 22 August 2010.
Fukushima, T. 2006. A Student-designed Grammar Quiz on the Web: A Constructive Mode of Grammar Instruction. (Online), 43 (1): 75-85, (www.informaworld.com/index/741513001.pdf), Accessed on 22 August 2010.
Holscherl, C., & Strubel, G. 2000. Web Search Behaviour of Internet Ex-perts and Newbies. (Online), (http:// portal.acm.org/citation.cfm? id=346311), Accessed on 22 August 2010.
Jones, K. T., & Chen, C. C. 2008. Blended Learning in a Graduate Ac-counting Course: Student Satisfaction and Course Design Issues, (Online),(http://www.aejournal.com/ojs/index.php/aej/article/viewFile/ 60/62), Accessed on 28 August 2010.
Keller, C., & Gernerud, L. 2002. Student' Perceptions of E-learning in Uni-versity Education. Journal of Educational Media, 27 (1-2).
Keller, J. 1983. Motivational Design and Instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Theories and Models; An Overview of Their Cur-rent Status (383 - 434). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ku, H.-Y., & Lohr, L. L. 2003. A Case Study of Chinese Student’s Attitudes Toward Their First Online Learning Experience. (Online), 51 (3) (http://www.columbia.edu/~lsb31/Chinese_online.pdf), Accessed on 22 August 2010.
Lee, Y. 2006. An Empirical Investigation into Factors Influencing the Adoption of an E-Learning System. Online Information Review, 30 (5): 517-541.
Mehlenbacher, B., Miller, C. R., Covington, D., & Larsen, J. S. 2000. Ac-tive and InteracAc-tive Learning Online: A Comparison of Web-Based and Conventional Writing Classes. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 43 (2).
Nesi, H. 1998. Using the Internet to Teach English for Academic Purposes. ReCALL, 10(1): 109.
O'Hanlon, N. 2001. Development, Delivery, and Outcomes of a Distance Course for New College Students. Library Trends, 50: 8-27.
Olson, T. M. & Wisher, R. A. 2002. The Effectiveness of Web-Based In-struction: An Initial Inquiry. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 3 (2).
Owston, R. D. 1997. The World Wide Web: A Technology to Enhance Teaching and Learning? Educational Researcher, 26 (2): 27-33.
Reeves, T. C. & Harmon, S. W. 1993. Systematic Evaluation Procedures for Instructional Hypermedia/Multimedia. Paper presented at the An-nual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, At-lanta, April 14 .
Roach, V. & Lemasters, L. 2006. Satisfaction with Online Learning: A Comparative Descriptive Study, (Online), (http:// www.ncolr.org/jiol/ issues/pdf/5.3.7.pdf), Accessed on 22 August 2010.
Rovai, A. P. 2004. Blended Learning and Sense of Community: A Com-parative Analysis with Traditional and Fully Online Graduate Courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 5 (2).
Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., & Lucking, R. (2004). The Classroom and School Community Inventory: Development, Refinement, and valida-tion of a Self-Report Measure for Educavalida-tional Research, (Online),(www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=EJ80 3735), Accessed on 22 August 2010.
Sauers, D., & Walker, R. C. 2004. A Comparison of Traditional and Tech-nology-Assisted Instructional Methods in the Business Communication classroom, (Online), (http://bcq.sagepub.com/content /67/4/430.short), Accessed on 28 August 2010.
Selim, H. M. 2007. Critical Success Factors for e-learning Acceptance: Confirmatory Factor Models, (Online), (http://www.qou.edu/ arabic /researchProgram/eLearningResearchs/criticalSuccess.pdf), Accessed on 28 August 2010.
Terrell, S. R. 2002. The Effect of Learning Style on Doctoral Course Com-pletion in a Web-based Learning Environment, (Online), (http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb= true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ663076&ERICExtSearch _SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ663076), Accessed on 27 August 2010.
Trevitt, C. 1995. Interactive Multimedia in University Teaching and Learn-ing: Some Pointers to Help Promote Discussion of Design Criteria. Paper presented at the Computers in University Biological Virtual Conference, CITI Liverpool, February 30-10 1995. From Eric Data-base, (Online), (http:Eric.com), Accessed on 28 August 2010.
Volery, T. & Lord, D. 2000. Critical Success Factors in Online Education, (Online), (http:// elmu.umm.ac.id/file.php/1/jurnal/I/International%20
Jour-nal%20of%20Educational%20Management/Vol14.Issue6.2000/06014 ec2.pdf), Accessed on 27 August 2010.
Wallace, L. 1996. Changes in the Demographics and Motivations of Dis-tance Education Students, (Online), (http:// eric.ed.gov/ERIC WebPor-tal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValu e_0=EJ546299&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ54629 9), Accessed on 28 August 2010.
Webster, J. & Hackley, P. 1997. Teaching Effectiveness in Technology-mediated Distance Learning, (Online), (http:// www.jstor.org/ pss /257034), Accessed on 28 August 2010.
